Tom's Hardware > Forum > CPU & Components > CPUs > CPU Speed comparison
Ask the community Add a reply
Word :    Username :           
 
lykele   08-12-2003 at 04:05:23 PM

Maybe someone would be good enough to explain to a novice how to compare cpu speeds.
Back in November 2001 I built a system with the Athlon XP 1600 processor. speed of 1.4 GHz. If I understand correctly a new Athlon XP Barton 2500+ has a speed of 1.833.

However after a year and a half is the only difference in processing speed .433? I was going to build a new system, but it hardly seems worth it.

I understand that the FSB speed is only how fast information is sent out and not in addition to the processor speed itself.

I must be missing something here. Is my comparsion correct or is there some other way to compare cpu speeds.

Thanks Jim

Add a reply
Sponsored Links
Register or log in to remove.
slb132   08-12-2003 at 04:22:11 PM
- 0 +

Well the Athlon XP 2500+ has 512KB of L2 cache because it has the Barton core. It is a extremely overclockable chip as well. It will perform a lot better than your XP1600+ because of the FSB and the memory speed (PC2700) you would get with the chip. The Barton can get up to 200FSB and with proper cooling, can run at XP3200+ speeds. So yes, 96 bucks for this processor is well worth it. You would need PC3200 though to run in sync with the FSB. You would also need to get an nforce2 ultra 400 motherboard if you wanted to OC because it supports 200FSB.

DFI i815EP, Intel Pentium III (Tualatin) 1.26GHz, ATI Radeon 9100, SoundBlaster Audigy 2 Platinum, Samsung 512MB SDRAM, Western Digital 80GB 7200RPG 8MB Cache

Reply to slb132
speeduk   08-12-2003 at 04:37:16 PM
- 0 +

Heres the real performance in a 3d app like 3dmark2001.

1600xp (1.4ghz) 512mb 133mhz memory + 9700pro = 11,000
2500xp (1.83ghz) 512mb 166mhz memory + 9700pro = 14,700
2500 @ 2.2ghz 512mb 200mhz memory + 9700pro = 16,000

Its simple to run a 2500 @ 2.2ghz+, most will do this at stock voltage too, but your 1600 will struggle to do 1.5ghz.
As it happens, my 2500 is sitting at 2.3ghz, 1.8V and runs cool at 46C idle 50C load. It will do 2.2ghz (3200 rating) at 1.725V (lower than your 1600 which needs 1.75 to run at 1.4ghz).

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6868334" target="_new"> MY RIG </A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1150155" target="_new"> 3D-03 </A>
<font color=red> 120% overclocker </font color=red> (cheapskate)

Reply to speeduk
lykele   08-12-2003 at 05:57:23 PM
- 0 +

However, putting aside the overclocking, then the comparsion of the 2 chips only results in .433 processor speed improvement?

Reply to lykele
Groveling_Wyrm   08-12-2003 at 08:29:29 PM
- 0 +

In terms of speed, yes, you are correct. However, it must be noted that IPC is also improved on a generally linear scale as well.

This means that you will get better performance not only from the .433 GHZ speed increase, but you should also gain approximately 1.5 times your current (XP1600+) processing power (relatively).

<font color=blue> Ok, so you have to put your "2 cents" in, but its value is only "A penny's worth". Who gets that extra penny? </font color=blue>

Reply to Groveling_Wyrm
TheRod   08-12-2003 at 09:36:59 PM
- 0 +

Humm....

OK, compare this to car engines. In 2000 Company X put a 2.0 Liters engine in their new car with 100 HP. For 2004 the same company put a new engine with 2.2 Liters with 250 HP in it.

So they boost the engine size by only 10% but get 25% more HP from it. How? They tweaked it and improved some parts or chenges some stuff in the design.

AMD have done the same thing. Instead of boosting "top speed" (Mhz), they revised their core, and updated the parts that were not good enough.

Intel choose to boost the speed first, but not AMD. This doesn't mean that Intel or AMD are better. They just took different path to reach the same goal... MORE CPU POWER TU USERS!

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?

Reply to TheRod
slvr_phoenix   08-12-2003 at 10:40:23 PM
- 0 +

Quote :

Intel choose to boost the speed first


Huh? Intel has done more to increase the P4s IPC than AMD has done for their Athlon, and the Athlon has been around <i>longer</i> than the P4.

<font color=purple><pre><A HREF="http://www.winamp.com" target="_new">Winamp<b><font color=blue>3</font color=blue></b></A> and freeform skins, the best thing since sliced llama loaf. (Now with more beef.)</pre><p></font color=purple>

Reply to slvr_phoenix
pIII_Man   08-12-2003 at 10:51:48 PM
- 0 +

i have to agree...in the days of k7 vs p6...the athlon was bumping up the MHZ and the piii was strugling to gain ipc...

Also...intel has been increasing ipc with every core revision...unfortunatly amd has not...recently only very slightly tweaking the barton core...

If i put my k6 in a Ferrari it would be faster than your your pentium 4 or Athlon XP :tongue:

Reply to pIII_Man
Ask the community Add a reply
Tom's Hardware > Forum > CPU & Components > CPUs > CPU Speed comparison
Go to:

There are 616 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.

Forum map
Bestofmedia Forum ©
2000-2009 Bestofmedia Group
Page generated in 0.307 seconds
Please mind

You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.

Add a reply Cancel
Sponsored links
  • Ask the community now
  • Publish
Ad
Related Topics
See all relatives topics
They won a badge
Join us in greeting them